- 13 - not receive the settlement amount at issue on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness. Petitioners disagree. We turn to the parties’ dispute regarding whether the settlement amount at issue was received on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness. That is because our findings and conclusions with respect to that dispute resolve the issue presented to us under section 104(a)(2). Where damages are received pursuant to a settlement agree- ment, such as is the case here, the nature of the claim that was the actual basis for settlement controls whether such damages are excludable under section 104(a)(2). United States v. Burke, supra at 237. The determination of the nature of the claim is factual. Robinson v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 116, 126 (1994), affd. in part, revd. in part, and remanded on another issue 70 F.3d 34 (5th Cir. 1995); Seay v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 32, 37 (1972). Where there is a settlement agreement, that determina- tion is usually made by reference to it. See Knuckles v. Commis- sioner, 349 F.2d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 1965), affg. T.C. Memo. 1964-33; Robinson v. Commissioner, supra. If the settlement agreement lacks express language stating what the settlement amount was paid to settle, the intent of the payor is critical to that determination. Knuckles v. Commissioner, supra; see also Agar v. Commissioner, 290 F.2d 283, 284 (2d Cir. 1961), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1960-21. Although the belief of the payee isPage: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011